Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
☭proletarian☭;1835850 said:or does AGW continue to look more and more like a religion as time goes by? The blind loyalty to dogma, the the blind faith in the 'prophets' like Al Gore. the way in which they respond to criticism - accusing those who question their story of being duped by the evil industrial powers- all very much like church, no?
I think it's an apt analogy, except I would generalize it more by calling it a faith. Religion implies more structure around that faith. So, calling it a faith would include both those groups who are structured in their beliefs (advocating for Copenhagen and Kyoto, for example) and those who have faith that AGW is real.☭proletarian☭;1835850 said:or does AGW continue to look more and more like a religion as time goes by? The blind loyalty to dogma, the the blind faith in the 'prophets' like Al Gore. the way in which they respond to criticism - accusing those who question their story of being duped by the evil industrial powers- all very much like church, no?
As AGW is not based on fact, it is a belief. So, advocating for policy based on one's beliefs (faith) in AGW is little different than advocating for legislation based on faith in a deity.Look, any policy position is going to have its crazies. Most moderates "believe" in some form of AGW and in reducing GHG emission. The reason it looks more crazy to you now than it did before, is that us moderates don't have to be vocal anymore, things are moving in the right direction. SO the only people still being vocal are the crazies.
If Bush was still in office and snubbing Copenhagen or something like this, there'd be a heck of a lot more peopl being vocal about it, not just the crazies.
☭proletarian☭;1836208 said:
A point often lost on many.☭proletarian☭;1836220 said:Skepticism is not an assertion
As AGW is not based on fact, it is a belief. So, advocating for policy based on one's beliefs (faith) in AGW is little different than advocating for legislation based on faith in a deity.Look, any policy position is going to have its crazies. Most moderates "believe" in some form of AGW and in reducing GHG emission. The reason it looks more crazy to you now than it did before, is that us moderates don't have to be vocal anymore, things are moving in the right direction. SO the only people still being vocal are the crazies.
If Bush was still in office and snubbing Copenhagen or something like this, there'd be a heck of a lot more peopl being vocal about it, not just the crazies.
☭proletarian☭;1835850 said:or does AGW continue to look more and more like a religion as time goes by? The blind loyalty to dogma, the the blind faith in the 'prophets' like Al Gore. the way in which they respond to criticism - accusing those who question their story of being duped by the evil industrial powers- all very much like church, no?
☭proletarian☭;1835850 said:or does AGW continue to look more and more like a religion as time goes by? The blind loyalty to dogma, the the blind faith in the 'prophets' like Al Gore. the way in which they respond to criticism - accusing those who question their story of being duped by the evil industrial powers- all very much like church, no?
Perhaps because my tone is one that involves the logic of scientific discovery. A theory is accepted as valid (one based on science) if it (1) falsifiable, (2) supported with valid science, and (3) has not been falsified. All must be met. AGW meets none of those conditions.As AGW is not based on fact, it is a belief. So, advocating for policy based on one's beliefs (faith) in AGW is little different than advocating for legislation based on faith in a deity.Look, any policy position is going to have its crazies. Most moderates "believe" in some form of AGW and in reducing GHG emission. The reason it looks more crazy to you now than it did before, is that us moderates don't have to be vocal anymore, things are moving in the right direction. SO the only people still being vocal are the crazies.
If Bush was still in office and snubbing Copenhagen or something like this, there'd be a heck of a lot more peopl being vocal about it, not just the crazies.
AGW is evidence-based, like all science. You are either (1) convinced by the evidence, (2) not convinced by the evidence, or (3) unsure. And your position can change.
THis shouldn't seem particularly threatening, so your tone is a little odd.
Perhaps because my tone is one that involves the logic of scientific discovery. A theory is accepted as valid (one based on science) if it (1) falsifiable, (2) supported with valid science, and (3) has not been falsified. All must be met. AGW meets none of those conditions.As AGW is not based on fact, it is a belief. So, advocating for policy based on one's beliefs (faith) in AGW is little different than advocating for legislation based on faith in a deity.
AGW is evidence-based, like all science. You are either (1) convinced by the evidence, (2) not convinced by the evidence, or (3) unsure. And your position can change.
THis shouldn't seem particularly threatening, so your tone is a little odd.
AGW suffers from a distinct lack of evidence and anyone who points that out soon finds it's political, not scientific.AGW is evidence-based, like all science.
